Why Not More Doctrinal Unity Among Greek Students

Do they have the qualifier "every" in front of them?

 

KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that Matthew 4:4 teaches their claim of an every word perfect English Bible translation.

Does Matthew 4:4 actually state or teach that there has to be one present every-word perfect Bible or one every-word perfect English Bible translation?

Do these KJV-only authors think through the logical implications or consequences of their own assertions? How does anyone live by a single word such a definite article or indefinite article or a conjunction?

Does Matthew 4:4 make any mention of the process of printing a book or of the process of Bible translating? Do some KJV-only advocates in effect presume to tell God what Matthew 4:4 has to mean? Does Matthew 4:4 teach that it is God’s responsibility to provide every person with an every-word perfect Bible? Is this new KJV-only interpretation of this verse applied consistently and justly both before and after 1611 and applied justly to all languages? Do KJV-only advocates even apply their new interpretation of Matthew 4:4 to the 1611 edition of the KJV since the 1611 edition does not include over 150 words that are found in most typical post-1900 KJV editions?

Was this new KJV-only interpretation perhaps conceived or invented to try to justify non-scriptural claims for the KJV?

 

What I have said is that not a single translator or paraphraser has included the word that you are insisting should be the interpretation of Matt 4:4, which is precept. The scores of translators are arguing against you by the simple fact of translating the verse, none of which includes the word precept.

Why not just confess that you do not believe the words of the scriptures whether they are in the Greek or whether they are in the English because that is what I am reading in your comments.

 

You merely demonstrate that you are reading my comments incorrectly just as you read wrong opinions into verses in the KJV when those verses do not teach the KJV-only opinions you read into them.

 

Perhaps words from the 1611 translators may be helpful.

Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it
Intent; if one where Journeying, never
Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if
one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangledness called krabbaton skimpouV, though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished forever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put Washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of
Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Praepuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong but this thread seems to confirm my suspicions that I have held for a long time, and that is that most if not all modern versions proponents think that the original message from God is inspired but not the words and neither the words or the message in translations are inspired.

So, you are saying the KJV translators are advising us to not believe Matthew 4:4 that I have quoted, even though they had an opportunity to translate the Greek any way they desired, even to having it say what you say Jesus really meant, that man shall not live by bread alone but by every precept that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? Is that really what you are preaching here?

Mt 4:4 But <1161> he answered <611> (5679) and said <2036> (5627), It is written <1125> (5769), Man <444> shall <2198> <0> not <3756> live <2198> (5695) by <1909> bread <740> alone <3441>, but <235> by <1909> every <3956> word <4487> that proceedeth <1607> (5740) out of <1223> the mouth <4750> of God <2316>.

Are you bold enough today to go on record before the world and say you disagree with what Jesus said in Matt 4:4? Will you actually admit that Jesus said what he said but he meant something else and you and L1560 knows what it is? If you are correct, why didn't some of the English translations either have the word precept in the text or leave the word every out?

 

You clearly are wrong. Your subjective human suspicions are not reliable as you assume opinions that are not true.

I have noted that the exact specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are inspired.

 

Are you ignoring and dodging the actual facts? Are you unaware of the actual rules given for the making of the KJV? Archbishop Richard Bancroft was the overseer or chief superior over the translating process, and he had authority over all the translators.

According to those rules, the KJV translators were not allowed to translate the Greek any way they desired since they were ordered to keep certain English renderings even if they were not the most accurate translation of the Greek words.

Is it interesting that you assert that they could translate the Greek any way they desired and yet many times in the New Testament they adopted the English renderings of the Latin Vulgate as rendered in the 1582 Rheims by its Roman Catholic translators?

 

Were they ordered to translate Matt 4:4 with the English word "word" instead of "precept" and who ordered all the other English translations and paraphrases to do the same thing?

 

Wrong. The original message from God is inspired, even every single word from God, but when a translation mistranslates a word or translates words added by men not in God's original words they are errors.

No.

NO.

Now you know that the KJV translators sometimes translated the Greek word reema 4487 (word) in Matthew 4:4 occasionally with a different word sometimes?
Mark 9:32 understood not that saying
Luke 2:19 But Mary kept all these things,

 

4487 ῥῆμα rhema [hray’-mah]

from 4483; n n; TDNT-4:69,505; [{See TDNT 431 }]

AV-word 56, saying 9, thing 3, no thing + 3756 1, not tr 1; 70

1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word

A few examples. These seems to be always plural.

Lu 20:26 And they could not take hold of his words <4487> before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
Lu 24:8 And they remembered his words <4487>,
Lu 24:11 And their words <4487> seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Joh 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words <4487> of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words <4487>?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words <4487> that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words <4487> of eternal life.
Joh 8:20 These words <4487> spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God’s words <4487>: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
Joh 10:21 Others said, These are not the words <4487> of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words <4487>, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words <4487>, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words <4487> that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words <4487> abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words <4487> which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 12:48 is an instance where individual words of our Lord are distinguished from all his words. A different Greek word is used.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth <114> (5723) me <1691>, and <2532> receiveth <2983> (5723) not <3361> my <3450> words <4487>, hath <2192> (5719) one that judgeth <2919> (5723) him <846>: the word <3056> that <3739> I have spoken <2980> (5656), the same <1565> shall judge <2919> (5692) him <846> in <1722> the last <2078> day <2250>.

3056 λόγος logos [log’-os]

from 3004; n m; TDNT-4:69,505; [{See TDNT 431 }]

AV-word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Cristo) 7, thing 5, not tr 2, misc 32; 330

1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea

Mt 5:37 But let your communication <3056> be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Considering John 12:48 above, it seems to me as if rejecting the words of the Lord Jesus is the same thing and equal with rejecting his person. What do you think?

 

Yes. Or rejecting his sayings.

 

We do not believe that the Kjv was a perfect translation, and we do not equate it to be the word of God as the Originals all were

 

Did the 1611 translators translate every word that the Original texts had regarding the saying of the Lord Jesus? Is not accepting Kjvo same as rejecting the words of Christ and the scriptures?

 

Understanding the scriptures (not understanding salvation) is dependent upon the words because in almost everything God reveals about himself is a matter of a physical illustration of a spiritual truth. His thoughts, he says in Isa 55, is not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. He says his thoughts are above our thoughts as far as the heaven is above the earth. His types and his truths are conveyed through words and this is the reason he says we must compare words because there are always continuing types and it is here a little and there a little and the Spirit of God who lives in the believer can increase his understanding as he studies and matures in the faith.

The above is not true for the salvation of a soul. All an unsaved man needs is a preacher who is sure of his salvation and is concerned about someone else's. A preacher can preach the gospel without a bible present and he can do it in his own words. The salvation provided by Jesus Christ requires child - like faith.